"Without events, there is no time."

This is a hard concept to grapple with. For me, it strikes the same rhetoric as the question, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" This might seem strange, so I'll explain.

The human concept of time is very much related to the "passing" of time: we think of clocks, watches and calendars. But "time" in and of itself is immeasurable without our subverting it into something quantifiable. Yet still we try and the full measure of time eludes us; the disjunction of "our" time and "space" time, for example, or (as in something I read) the proton-emission in the quantum level of physics lead the controversy between time as a fluid entity versus time happening in discrete moments.

Time is a fact, rather like the tree that falls in the forest. But time becomes a truth when you add human cognition into the mix. That tree makes a sound when it falls when we are there to hear it because it becomes a truth in our concept of our own history, implanted in the brain of the person who heard it - the witness. Fact and truth are disparate entities: one requires a human witness while the other doesn't.

Similarly, "events" are moments in our understanding of "time," like the camera's ability to record single frames: the shutter is released, a tableaux made true in paper by the operation of the photographer. However, "time" occurs without us and this continuous moment is a fact. A photograph only records what is captured by the viewfinder.

To conclude this rather confusing post, it is, in my opinion, indeed true that "without events, there is no time" only in the human cognition of "time." Without the latter, events are just happenings in the continuous moment of time and the quotation would then become false.